Moore Militaria Advisor Sparse Tiger Stripes Set (Gold)


My friend, Trey Moore has come out with another batch of tiger stripe. This time in the “gold” version. This is another limited run so you better hurry. All of his tigers are great and I will personally vouch for the quality. It’s the stuff you have seen me wear over the last 18 years.

Advisor Sparse Tiger Stripes (Gold). These are the classic “advisor” pattern and are the “Anglo” cut with US Sizes. True to originals, these are more slim fitting than many of the repros on the market. This run is part of a limited partnership and available solely through us in the USA. These have incredible detail including color, fabric, dish buttons, green thread, YKK zipper and and simple ink stamp for size in garment. Classic “advisor” cut which is correct for this pattern. Coat features two double button chest pockets with outward facing bellows, left sleeve cigarette pocket, and hanger tab in neck (C2B-EXP-3P1 style).

Advisor Sparse Tiger Stripes are a mid-war pattern from the Vietnam War and are commonly seen in use from 1968 on through the end of the war. Their use was widespread amongst LRRP / Ranger Units, SF, SOG, CIDG and ARVN units. They are often referred to as “Gold Tigers” based on the color.


  1. Y’know… The thing I’ve always wondered about, looking at Vietnam-era “tiger stripe” is why in the hell the stripes are almost always running horizontal, rather than vertical… On the real article, namely the feline tiger, the stripes run vertically, and that works. The few times I’ve been around real-deal tiger stripe camouflage (some of which was actual Vietnam-era issue, in the hands of an old-timer…), the horizontal pattern just didn’t work very well for actual concealment, drawing the eye to it because the dark striping typically don’t run like that in nature…

    Never could figure that one out, TBH. It’s tiger-stripe, but we’re running the stripes 90 degrees opposed to what’s on a tiger…? And, ohbytheway, there ain’t hardly anything in nature with horizontal striping. Look at, for example, the zebra: Vertical. I can only think of a couple of animals that have horizontal stripes, and they’re mostly critters that are reliant on laying down and remaining motionless in concealment, like a deer fawn or young peccary. No idea about the behavior of an okapi, the only other horizontally-striped animal I can think of, off the top of my head.

    Were the guys designing this stuff planning on everyone laying on their sides whenever trying to avoid attention…? I suppose that might work, when in the prone, but…

    Shadow (mostly…) doesn’t work like that.

    • tigers dont stand and walk 5-6 foot high among branches and leaves that intermingle nearly horizontal is why its not vertical.

      • Ever actually been out in the woods with someone in tiger stripes? I have; our OPFOR bubbas had that stuff for a bit, and I’m here to tell you that upright and moving, that crap stands out even worse than woodland BDUs do. Even when they’re still, they stand out–Typically, the black and shadow of a brush background has vertical orientation, as in tree trunks and so forth. Tiger stripe does not align with that, and stands out because of it.

        It’s not a huge deal, being as that camouflage technology has moved on, but it does make one wonder what the hell they were thinking.

        Interestingly, what I’ve found over the years is that it’s a hell of a lot harder to spot solid colors when they are moving. If one notices, your typical prey species are almost all solidly colored, with no real “patterning”. If you go looking for deer around here, they blend in with everything from woods to soil to rocks up in the mountains. I honestly think that some of the best “camouflage” was the South African Defense Force “nutria brown” on everything, and that the whole “pattern” mentality is another example of people going for the “cool factor” rather than common sense. Typically, after about a day or two of being out in the field, you’re pretty much just wearing dirt-colored gear, anyway…

        Funniest crap I ever saw regarding camouflage was how my guys got up and moved on me, coming back from an OPORD. Two of the six had just changed into clean uniforms from their rucks, and the only damn reason I found those fools without making a display of myself was because of the two clean guys, who stood out like sore thumbs against the background. Everyone else was the generic color of filth, and almost impossible to make out.

        Although, come to think of it, had I had a better sense of smell, I probably could have found them by odor alone…

        I honestly have grave doubts about the real utility of camouflage uniforms for actual field use under combat conditions. I kinda suspect that the whole deal has become more a heraldry issue than one of real need, although that may change under the pressure of all-spectrum sensors in drones. As far as the merely human eye goes, though…?

          • Wearing something ain’t going to teach you much, in terms of how well it works as camouflage. You really can’t see yourself in a mirror very well at range.

            Working around guys wearing the stuff, and having to spot them during operations? That’ll learn ya…

            I’ve been around tiger stripe probably twice in an operational training environment. Both times it was easier to spot against forest and woodland backgrounds than guys wearing woodland, and mostly because of that horizontal vs. vertical orientation thing. The majority of shadow and dark lines in nature run vertical, not horizontal. Dude’s upright and moving, he’s easier to spot with tiger stripe than woodland.

            Second point? Know what was the hardest to spot, out of all of it…? The dudes running around in OG-107 solid OD greens. Especially when they were moving.

            Of course, on the other hand, that might have been because they were the light infantry OPFOR from 509th Airborne, and were pretty much ninja types that knew what they were doing when it came to concealing their activities. The guys in woodland…? Not so much. Your mileage may vary.

            I’d also point out that one of the most effective tiger variants, here in the US and on the civilian market, was ASAT–Whose striping runs vertical, not horizontal. Guys I’ve been out hunting with that wore that were harder to spot against most of the terrain we were in, again because the shadow alignment was mostly vertical. The guys who designed that stuff did a lot of research work into what worked and what didn’t–And, I’ll point out, they did not orient horizontally with their stripes.

            ‘Nuff said on a fairly trivial point. If you go into the old manuals that actually tell you how to camouflage stuff, the majority of them will tell you that it’s essentially a waste of time to try and camouflage a man-sized object when you’re looking at something like camouflaging an entire building or other sizeable installation. Your best bet, at that scale, is to paint that object to match the background, and forego patterning of any kind.

            Those of us who remember visiting Air Force bases back in the 1980s when they were maniacally pursuing their “Warrior Ethos” stuff can remember seeing things like the runway light housings being painted in a reasonable facsimile of the three-color NATO pattern for vehicles. Those things stood out like multi-hue earthtoned sore thumbs against the manicured grass around the runway, and the same pattern applied to things like revetment doors…? All I can do is laugh, remembering. There are reasons that when places like Disney World want something to go all unobtrusive, they paint the bastard in what they actually named “Go Away Green”, a solid color.

            I will remain highly dubious of the entire proposition behind a lot of modern camouflage efforts when it comes to uniform patterns. Shape/outline are way more important; borders between things are more easily noticed, which is why I think the Marines are nuts with the whole “Uniform in MARPAT/field gear in solid Coyote”–The clear borders between the two contrasting uniform items make it really easy to spot, and make for great aiming points. Were someone to suggest I take charge of things like that, I’m pretty sure I’d plunk down our tax money on solidly colored gear in something like the SADF Nutria or the Marine Coyote, with a kit of accessory spray-on temporary dyes for specific theaters of operation. The idiocy of woodland in the deserts of the Arabian peninsula and desert patterns in Bosnia were laughable at best, but probably deadly in any actual shooting war against competent enemies. We’d have been better off in faded OD green in both theaters… Or, khaki. Friggin’ woodland patterns in the desert is almost as bad as the early French blue-on-red in WWI.

          • no offense Kirk, but sometimes you are really condescending in tone. Unintentionally I hope. I have been around people using it to avoid detection in training.

            Most camo will work for camo, movement is the killer and there is no color or pattern camo this side of perdition that will hide that.

            I will finish by saying a lot of guys in a hell of a dangerous close contact situations used it and trusted it and seem to think it worked or they wouldnt have worn it.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here